Jhanwarlal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12307 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12307 Raj
Judgement Date : 14 October, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jhanwarlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 2022

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 523/2021

Jhanwarlal S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Sewag, R/o Mundra Sewgon Ka Chowk Ratani Vyaso Ka Chowk, Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Kalla for Mr. Kaushal Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

14/10/2022

1. By way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order

dated 07.07.2021, passed by the learned Gram Nyayalaya,

Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") as affirmed by

the order dated 28.07.2021, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.5, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as "the

Revisional Court").

2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner is the registered

owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-07-CA-0590,

which met with an accident and the same was seized by the police

authority.

3. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section

457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the vehicle on

supurdginama before the learned trial Court.

(2 of 4) [CRLW-523/2021]

4. Petitioner's aforesaid application came to be disposed of by

the learned trial Court in the manner that petitioner was directed

to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.6,50,000/- in the form of FDR

for probable damages payable in relation to the deceased and

other three injured victims, as the vehicle was not insured. The

petitioner was directed to furnish supurdginama.

5. Petitioner challenged the order dated 07.07.2021, passed by

the trial Court by way of filing revision.

6. The order passed by the learned trial Court was affirmed by

the learned Revisional Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned

trial Court was not justified in imposing a condition of furnishing

the Bank guarantee/FDR and the vehicle ought to have been

released simply on furnishing supurdginama.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

9. Indisputably, the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was not

having valid insurance cover at the time of accident. This being

the position, provisions of Rule 10.2A inserted as per the 2019

amendment brought in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990

shall be applicable.

10. In the judgment of rendered in the case of Hetram Vs. State

of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1502/2022), this

Court has held as follows:

"13. It will not be out of place to reproduce the amended provision Rule 10.2A, which reads as follows:-

"10.2A. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident.- (1) No court shall

(3 of 4) [CRLW-523/2021]

release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in the name of registered owner or when the registered owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.

(2) Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks, or when registered owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in circumstance mentioned in sub-rule(1), the motor vehicle shall be sold off in public auction by the magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred, on expiry of three months of the vehicle being taken in possession by the investigating police officer, and proceeds thereof shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in question, within fifteen days for purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded, or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident."

14. In the face of the amendment brought in the form of Rule 10.2A of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the claimants are not left high and dry. If the vehicle is released on supurdginama simply on furnishing solvent surety, in the event of award being passed, the claimants will have to run from pillar to post to recover the claim amount."

(4 of 4) [CRLW-523/2021]

11. In the present case, since the vehicle was uninsured and the

trial Court has ascertained the amount of bank guarantee while

keeping in mind the probable damages/claim, the order of the trial

Court cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of the law.

12. The present petition fails.

13. In case the petitioner does not furnish requisite FDR/Bank

guarantee by 15.11.2022, the concerned Magistrate shall auction

the car and its proceeds shall be forwarded to the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal where the claimants (legal heirs of deceased

Kanaram) have filed their claims as mandated by proviso to sub-

rule (2) of the Rule 10.2A.